Triggered: Australian reporter has meltdown over Dana Loesch

After the Australian media’s hate campaign against the NRA enters it’s second week, it appears some on the other side are starting to throw their toys out of the cot.

Dana Loesch has well and truly got under Channel Nine reporter Lizzie Pearl’s skin after she produced this rant:

“I have lived in this country, working as the US Correspondent for the Nine Network for only nine months. In that time I have covered three of the 10 most deadly mass shootings in this country’s history.

Las Vegas, where 58 people at a country music concert were killed by a gunman who was in his Mandalay Bay hotel room, spraying bullets into the crowd. Sutherland Springs, Texas, where a shooter took his gun into the First Baptist Church and claimed 26 lives.

And Parkland, Florida, where a teenager armed with a military-style assault rifle opened fire in the hallways and classrooms of his former high school. No Dana, the media does not love mass shootings.

And later:

“V networks are opening the mic, and the people speaking up are calling for change.

In this case it’s teenagers who survived the shooting who are speaking the loudest. Do they not deserve to be heard? President Donald Trump is flagging the idea of arming some trained teachers as a way of stopping mass shootings.

He deserves to be heard too, just as those who agree with him do. It’s easy to hate on the media, we are intruders by nature. It’s our job to show up at the worst possible time. But we all know if you ignore something, it doesn’t go away.

The media is facilitating a long and hard conversation this country desperately needs to have. If the NRA wants to be a part of that conversation, great. Perhaps this is an attempt by the NRA to shift the focus and change the subject on gun control, and maybe we took the bait.

But no Dana, the media does not love mass shootings.

You would be better placed spending your time constructing an articulate argument as to why 18-year-olds should be allowed to legally purchase AR-15 military-style assault rifles than taking cheap shots. There would be many much happier reporters across the US, if Florida was the last mass shooting we ever had to cover.

You can read the rest for yourself but it’s really just the same sophist nonsense we’ve seen all week. All in all, it’s classic Bolshevism from Pearl – plays the woman because she can’t play the ball. That’s more than likely why they filled half the article with a large portrait photo of Pearl, to make up for the actual lack of substance or argument.

The worst part about it is that Pearl has tried to portray the media somehow as the victims’ in this piece, which is just patently absurd particularly when she has made a conscious decision to pursue a career in journalism, potentially covering horrific events all over the planet.

Pearl tries to make an argument about “what about covering a rapist targeting women in a particular street of a particular neighbourhood?” And do you think that those women would be better off unarmed? I’m sure Jill Meagher took solace in the fact that thank god it wasn’t with a gun.

Further, the statement “articulate arguments for why someone needs an AR15 assault rifle” answers itself when you use deliberately misleading vocabulary and clearly don’t know the subject matter. Perhaps look into why the “why do you need it” argument is inane, authoritarian rubbish?

People also still have many unanswered questions over what happened at Las Vegas considering you covered it, but we’re not holding your breath that you’ll investigate that further with any vigor.

We could spend hours pulling this rant apart, but it’s not really worth it or different to anything else we’ve pointed out about Australian journos and firearms before.

The Australian media have literally spent the last week and a half blaming the oldest civil rights organisation in America for an event it had nothing to do with. It’s spent zero time asking why the Police and FBI did nothing despite to prevent the preventable the multitude of warnings. It’s spent zero time grilling Sheriff Israel. It’s also spent zero time talking about how CNN was handing out scripted questions and basically ambushed Loesch in a very one-sided town hall.

However, Dana Loesch absolutely knocked it out of the park on CNN in a biased, scripted, hostile environment. Here’s her follow-up speech at CPAC which got Lizzie all triggered:

Articulate, confident and professional – a world apart from Pearl’s rant.

It could also be the fact that the media are clearly using kids to push a pre-defined gun control agenda which is the absolute refuge of a scoundrel, but that’s not surprising considering the Australian media has had 21 years of practice already with the Alannah and Madeline Foundation.

We’re all up for debate on Australia’s or the United States’ gun laws but the question really is, are you in the media? Patterns of behaviour generally indicate no.

On that, one of your colleagues Brett MacLeod certainly knows how to have a civil debate on firearms. Watch and learn:

Sadly Dana nailed it – to quote Forensic Psychiatrist Dr. Park Dietz. “We’ve had 20 years of mass murders throughout which I have repeatedly told CNN and our other media, if you don’t want to propagate more mass murders, don’t start the story with sirens blaring. Don’t have photographs of the killer. Don’t make this 24/7 coverage. Do everything you can not to make the body count the lead story, not to make the killer some kind of anti-hero. Do localize the story to the affected community and make it as boring as possible in every other market. Because every time we have intense saturation coverage of a mass murder, we expect to see one or two more within a week.”

If it bleeds it leads and if you have to nudge a few loons in the direction of making it bleed, that seems to be just fine with our media.

The thing about the media is that they only give you the most simplified, comic-book idea of the issues and players involved-or should I say actors. See below.
The only pro-gun organisation or perspective they mention is the NRA, when the NRA is in fact a very weak organisation in that it never calls out the obvious fakery of these supposed mass shooting incidents. With the pro-gun “opposition” doing this, it is possible for a gun control agenda to be quietly promoted since both sides of the debate are controlled.
If it’s not a crisis actor issue, then prominent people on the so-called pro-gun side can re-frame it as a mental health issue, and if it’s a mental health issue, then it can become an excuse for gun control. ” It wasn’t a gun issue, but let’s expand background checks for more mental health screening, even though some people will become ineligible to own a firearm.”
False opposition figure Trump is wanting to ban bump stocks. The same thing goes for this. If the shootings at Las Vegas and Parkland were fake, then there is no excuse to do this. Yes, I know there’s no logic in it anyway even if these events were real, but pretending they were real makes it possible to sway some otherwise pro-gun people towards “sensible” gun control measures.
See how it works? It’s known as the salami method-slice by slice.
Not everyone even hear wants to take the crisis actor psy-op side of shooting events seriously.
Harry Buttle for one will not appreciate this.
If this survives moderation, I will be grateful for the opportunity to spread my insane divisive bile LOL.
Anyway, here’s some thought-provoking vids:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KZdJFOFFfIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s_usteY3WM&index=9&list=PLHYU_gUlkHlLpRDBJvohwSBIGNyPo4FmD&t=0shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efPSH5VJogo
There are many others besides.
Read the comments for more insights as well.

a. he is sane,
b. he doesn’t appreciate conspiracy minded idiots publicly making firearm owners look like we are all fools, and
c. one should never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

Calling me insane is easy, looking at the evidence I present is hard.
If I do say so myself, I think I explain my views clearly and in an educated-sounding way.
Doesn’t that give you pause, as well as the fact that I agree with everything else you say as far as gun control is concerned?
If I’m sane enough to agree with you on so many things, then maybe I’m right about some things I say that you can’t hack?

Laura, you think a wikipedia article is proof, that alone tells me you have no idea.
You are the classic tinfoil hat wearer – you think that Govt is competent enough to run a conspiracy.
Even a busted clock is right twice a day.

Social Media

Firearm Owners United

Firearm Owners United was founded in response to the many hysterical voices crying out for further gun control in this country.
We already go through so many hoops to get our firearms as it is. We do not need more hoops. We don’t need a mother/father figure deciding what’s the best for us.
We are Law Abiding Firearm Owners, and we are sick of being treated like second-class citizens.